Till last week, Aakar Patel, journalist and columnist, was perhaps known to only a small English speaking audience in the country. Overnight, the executive director of Amnesty International India, has become a household name at least in Karnataka.
A FIR was filed against Amnesty and among many charges, the rights organisation is facing sedition charges too. When Deccan Chronicle chatted with him over tea, Mr Patel narrated his journey from journalism to human rights. His replies reflected his genuine concern for rights and one could spot his intellectual depth. Here are excerpts from the interview.
You were a professional journalist and now, you’re a columnist. Your taking up an assignment with Amnesty raises a question: Have you accepted this because you want to dedicate yourself to the fight for human rights, which you as a journalist could not do?
My journey from a journalist to columnist and now as Amnesty India executive director is a long one. The last time I worked as a full time journalist was 10 years ago when I was the editor of a Gujarati newspaper in Ahmedabad.
Between 2010 and 2014, I did only reading and writing. During this time, I used to write columns. Then, last year, when I was asked to join Amnesty, I thought I had the right kind of qualification because I had never worked in such a sector.
Democracy, civil liberty and human rights go with the area of interest and work I do. The idea of Amnesty is illuminating and quite different from what people have. Amnesty does work based on research. Till they complete the research, they will not campaign outside. I will give you an example.
The Kashmir report was researched for three years and nobody has done that kind of research ever before. The uniqueness of the report is that since 1989, J&K police had filed FIRs against armed forces violations and had investigated and filed chargesheets.
They asked for the Centre’s approval for lifting of AFPSA so that those (personnel involved in excesses) could be prosecuted in civil courts. Not even one case was approved by the Centre. After collecting the evidence, we sent it to the Army for a response. Finally, when they did not respond, we published that report last year.
Is it more challenging than working in a newspaper?
It is a different kind of challenge. For a newspaper, every day, there is something new. Here in Amnesty, we do research, besides campaigning and mobilising funds. It’s as exciting as working in a newspaper, I would say. As a columnist, I write on food, culture, politics and travel. However, It would be incorrect of me to take a position which is opposed to what I do here in Amnesty. I am always mindful of the fact that I write on those issues which do not differ from the policy of Amnesty.
This universal declaration of human rights you are speaking about evolved after World War II. Do you really feel it has relevance in its form and substance in this age?
It is an eternal document. It looks at individual rights. It is a document which will be relevant for a very long time. It is a different matter that some states signed it but do not follow it. But it is the best document about individual liberty and rights.
To put it in tangible terms, if group A attacks Group B inside a nation, Amnesty won’t bat for the rights of any group. But if group A or B faces a government which is represented through the police or army and if people are killed in the process, you will take the side of the anti-government groups. Isn't it?
We do work in the area of non-state actors as well. We did a detailed study on Taliban. It's not that we only focus on state violations of human rights. We study non-state actors too. And you see, there is nothing wrong in holding the state accountable on the basis of its own Constitution. It is also important to see if there are any non-state actors who violate human rights.
Did you raise your voice when the rights of Kashmiri Pandits happened?
Yes, many statements were issued. I would vouch for one thing. Amnesty is not focused on only one sect. Having said that, we have limited people and we cannot take up every issue that comes before us. For example, after the Gujarat riots, we did not do much work there.
Coming back to Saturday’s event, what was the rationale behind getting Kashmiri women to speak here?
Those of us outside Kashmir, we have seen the state through a particular prism which is about terrorism and all these come through the media. We have to realise that they are all Indian citizens to whom India has not done justice. If we hear their voice, we will become a mature and better democracy.
After the Bengaluru incident are you planning to change your plan for Mumbai and Delhi?
We will continue. The Mumbai function was to happen last Saturday. It did not happen, because we are still in Bengaluru, working out the steps to be taken in the case filed against us.
Do you think the skit enacted at the end of the function was the trigger for this crisis?
I think we are a free democracy and we should be proud of the fact that we are a republic. We have free speech. We should not be doing self censorship. We should be outspoken as a society. I do not think we should change that. It’s unfortunate that the slogans diverted attention from the main focus of the function.
In hindsight, do you think it was a bad strategy to sensitise Indians through such functions?
I don't think it was a bad strategy, though I was not there. The slogan shouting happened after the function was over, I think the media should have closely looked at the content. They (media) did not focus on the intentions, the quality of research or what was said during the discussion.
